The problem is "true" DDR on the pc doesnt offer much more performance than SDRAM does.People need to quit looking at these maximum throughput numbers,they are misleading.The real issue is bus utilization and the mac seems finely engineered in that area.

On the other hand I am unimpressed with this upgrade and it bodes poorly for apples future.These machines wont stay competative for long but they will sit on the shelves till they are stale as week old bread.

I wanted something exciting and world beating but

now I dont even want a new machine anymore.I'll just use my 2 year old imac for another few years.

I dont even feel like a mac advocate anymore...which is sad becase I had been one for a while.I plan to switch....to the real world,and not come to these sites anymore.Computers are a bore.

<strong>The problem is "true" DDR on the pc doesnt offer much more performance than SDRAM does.People need to quit looking at these maximum throughput numbers,they are misleading.The real issue is bus utilization and the mac seems finely engineered in that area.

On the other hand I am unimpressed with this upgrade and it bodes poorly for apples future.These machines wont stay competative for long but they will sit on the shelves till they are stale as week old bread.

I wanted something exciting and world beating but

now I dont even want a new machine anymore.I'll just use my 2 year old imac for another few years.

I dont even feel like a mac advocate anymore...which is sad becase I had been one for a while.I plan to switch....to the real world,and not come to these sites anymore.Computers are a bore.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I hate to agree.... but I almost do.

If I hadn't recently bought an audiomedia card and fallen in love with my computer again I simply could care less . . . and Apple is making it easy to feel like I'm driving a Dodge Aspen of the mid 80s ilk . . . its sure NOT sexy and exciting to be a Mac-head anymore . . . its merely neurotic and clinging. . .

oh well

oh well

I know.. sure just as soon as all the software goes OSX and OSX goes gold then we can be proud again

that is, just before Apple then switches to x86 and necessitates another industry wide struggle to adapt that seems increasingly NOT worth it.....

No, it does run on a 166 MHz bus, and so does the dual 1 GHz now. it's all on Apple's site. And also, this is one reason why people shouldn't be comparing it directly to the XServe, because the XServe's bus is at 133.

seems to me that apple is just biding their time until the new processors are ready, be they from moto or ibm. a stop gap if you will. still, i think these are not to shabby for the cost in my opinion.

Oh, and just to counter all the naysayers and bell-ringers... are you people completely oblivious to what Apple is doing in the industry? Did you miss IBM's announcement about that new chip based on the Power 4? Have you forgotten about Apple's involvement with Hypertransport? Do you really think Apple isn't going to use USB 2 or FireWire 2? Gigawire? 802.11g? Do you honestly believe Apple will be using a 166 bus for the next 3 years?

Come on people, apply some common sense. Use the known information to come up with some conclusions. Are you even aware the reason Apple is still using relatively low bus speeds is due entirely to Motorola? What do you think is going to happen when Apple starts using IBM's new chips?

Man, being pessimistic about Apple is one thing, but to completely ignore so much information that's so easily accessible is flat out irresponsible. What we've seen today is Apple doing the best it possibly can with what Motorola is giving them - don't think for a millisecond that Apple is going to stop there, or that much bigger plans are not in the works.

Apple is Motorola's bitch for now, but they're getting out of prison soon.

I think now that OS X is "done", Apple is going to focus more on hardware, and we already have evidence of this: IBM's new beast, the HT consortium, and already, Apple's commitment to maintaining parity with Wintels when it comes to video cards.

There's a simple reason we don't have 8x AGP folks: it's that Moto's 166 MHz bus can't feed it enough to make it worthwhile. Even the DDR RAM is probably overkill.

Building a mobo around the G4 is like putting lipstick on a pig. IMO, Apple's doing all they can, when you consider that Apple is working with IBM on a CPU that will demolish x86 performance. Next year is going to be the Mac II all over again. Remember when those were bleeding edge technology?

That may be all fine and good but my APPLE stock is loosing me money right now . . . and, unless I hold onto it for ever, it propably will keep doing so, . . . it looks like it will be awhile till my stock is able to pay for a new machine, like I hoped it would when I bought it at 15.50$

I just am slightly dissapointed that, rather than be the vangaurd, as Apple used to be... its chasing the wake of the rest of the industry

<strong>I just am slightly dissapointed that, rather than be the vangaurd, as Apple used to be... its chasing the wake of the rest of the industry</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not to repeat myself, but you're talking specifically about hardware... and the reason the busses aren't faster is 100% due to Motorola and the G4 chip. Apple still has the best operating system, the best included apps, the best hardware integration... the list goes on and on. Their hardware is also some of the best in the industry, chip and bus speed aside.

IBM's Power series of chips, in whatever form it takes for the Mac, will bring a new era of skull-flattening speed to the Mac. This I guarantee.

<strong>Oh, and just to counter all the naysayers and bell-ringers... are you people completely oblivious to what Apple is doing in the industry? Did you miss IBM's announcement about that new chip based on the Power 4? Have you forgotten about Apple's involvement with Hypertransport? Do you really think Apple isn't going to use USB 2 or FireWire 2? Gigawire? 802.11g? Do you honestly believe Apple will be using a 166 bus for the next 3 years?

Come on people, apply some common sense. Use the known information to come up with some conclusions. Are you even aware the reason Apple is still using relatively low bus speeds is due entirely to Motorola? What do you think is going to happen when Apple starts using IBM's new chips?

Man, being pessimistic about Apple is one thing, but to completely ignore so much information that's so easily accessible is flat out irresponsible. What we've seen today is Apple doing the best it possibly can with what Motorola is giving them - don't think for a millisecond that Apple is going to stop there, or that much bigger plans are not in the works.

Like the man said - "We like options".</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry man I must say - I am really getting fed up with this !

Apple MUST get their act sorted or they will become dust, this is a pitiful upgrade ( the third in the past 2 years) and no amount of sweet talking is going to change this.

I love apple and I LOVE OSX but this is really getting close to pushing me to the dark side ... for about half of the price of the entry level PM I can build me a PC that will SMOKE (and please lets not argue about this - its clear to everyone) one of these macs. I understand this is Mot's fault and Apple are basically stuck between a rock and a hard place here but i think they should at least come out with an official explanation or something - they owe it to us - their extremely loyal customers who are basically being pied on ! the minimum i would expect is for Mr Jobs to come out and say - sorry guys we know we have a problem we're working on it and we will fix it soon.